Having read the correspondence, I can't see any reference to a DMCA takedown notice in Zazzle's missives. It's likely they have an automated takedown arrangement with Summit and that, if they have clarified / have to clarify why this piece was taken down, it would for unauthorised use of their marks. Which is not unreasonable if its tags were similar to those apparently autogenerated above.
My response would be sure, no problem, as long as you give me admin access to your email system and copies of your corporate accounts for the past 5 years so I can perform a "background check" on you too -- solely for the purpose of making sure you're a good employer of course. After all, I'm sure you've done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide.
Sony probably won't even have to pay out a chunk of this money because if any of the artists haven't recouped yet, this money will merely be "credited" towards their accounts.
The problem arises from the fact that Spotify requires users to have a Facebook account to sign up. That means it is not possible to use the service anonymously or pseudonymously -- as required by German law.
I know nothing about German law in this area, but surely Facebook also requires a Facebook account to use the service? Is Facebook legal in Germany?
Well, probably not. It's unlikely anything they do will be sufficiently transformative to create a derivative work, but this is an additional defence and does not rule out fair use of the original work. But the reason for all this language is to avoid a court case by getting limited (though pretty broad) rights to works in the first place. I am curious about the inclusion of "sell" though - not familiar with the language here.
Show me where another social media site claims the right to SELL the artwork that a 3rd party links to it!
I'm not sure how "sell" should be interpreted (please jump in if you're familiar with this language!), but, as Mike said, they're doing this to protect themselves from the actions of their users: they want to ensure that, if I upload a picture to the site and someone gets upset and sues, it's my problem, not theirs.
If I upload one of your photos to the site, I am not in a position to grant Pinterest a licence to the work and so Pinterest has no right to exploit it, no matter what it says in their contract with me (excepting rights under any licence you may have given me, fair use and other defences).
Sure, modification (possibly creating a derivative work) can be fair use. But Pinterest wants to avoid having to employ a fair use defence by getting a licence to use the material anyway, and does so in a broad (though pretty typical for a TOS) manner to cover as many circumstances as they can. Though I'm happy to be corrected, modifications will probably be limited to resizing, cropping and changing the image quality or format.
Typically the right to exploit the content is revoked if the work is removed from the service in question, which in practice would stop the service, for example, using it as part of a major ad campaign or something else wildly beyond the intent of the original uploader, though I didn't see such a clause after scanning the Pinterest TOS.
You're lucky they're not charging you a transmission fee too for getting the words from your eyes to your brain, and charging you additionally for the temporary copy of the work your mind makes as you read it.*
Depressingly this would have felt like a silly, far-fetched story to me not that long ago. Now it just seems like the logical next step.
* And don't even think about making any derivative works. Only people with photographic memories and no imagination may read books in the future.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure if it's just a poor choice of language in the minutes, but social networks were no more responsible for organising these protests than town squares were in the past.
Of course it's true that they enable communication and the flow of ideas in ways that hasn't been possible before, but it's the people on those networks they must address - and their concerns - not the networks themselves.
The internet itself would have been in deep trouble, if you'd had this attitude about copyright twenty years ago -- where the very ideas that gave birth to this industry would be at risk.
And let's not forget about the large patent portfolio Tim Berners-Lee amassed - without these incentives to innovate the web would never have taken off.
Some more examples are solutions created through evolutionary algorithms, like this antenna for NASA's Space Technology 5 mission (paper), created using genetic programming. The evolved design apparently had higher gain and more uniform coverage than a conventionally designed antenna - the outcome was something commercially valuable.
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act assigns copyright in computer generated works to the person who made "the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work", though this interesting Duke Law & Technology Review article argues it's not always obvious what that means, or whether it's the right approach. It also talks extensively about Mandelbrot sets. :)
I can't speak for other countries, but in the UK the director and producer are jointly given the copyright in a film, unless of course they are under a contract that says differently. Though probably pragmatic, it's worth contrasting this with still photography: a lone photographer is assigned the copyright for her pictures, whereas a DP or camera operator working with a director receives none, despite giving similar creative input and expression based on her expertise.
Regarding American Airlines' attitude to customer experience, you may be interested in Dustin Curtis's story complaining about AA's website: their site is horrid, so he designed a better one; an actually competent UX guy from AA responded and explained; AA fired the UX guy by way of saying thank you.
There's a linked post from Selena Kitt which argues that the card companies are trying to force erotic publishers to pay higher rates.
What I discovered was that most merchant-services (i.e. companies that allow you to use Visa and MasterCard on their site) which allow adult products charge a $5000 up-front fee to use their service. Then, they take exorbitant percentages from each transaction. Some 5%, some 14%, some as high as 25%.
Now it was starting to make more sense. The credit card companies charge higher fees for these “high-risk” accounts because there is a higher rate of what they call “chargebacks.” You know that protection on your credit card, where if you dispute the charge, you don’t have to pay for it? Well they’ve determined that happens more with porn and gambling and other “high-risk” sites than others, so they’re justified in charging more money to process payment for those sites.
Paypal doesn’t want to have to pay Visa and MC for carrying “high risk” accounts on their books. You have to remember that Paypal is a middleman. Sites that carry high-risk material have to pay the high-risk costs of doing business. If you’re going through Paypal, you don’t have to pay that. Until Paypal catches you. And then they insist you take down your high-risk content or lose your account.
The post also discusses the types of material being censored further. While this appears to be somewhat fluid (see linked Smashwords posts), some publishers have gone beyond banning titles that feature descriptions of illegal acts (rape, paedophilia, incest) and have banned books including themes of "pseudo-incest", "barely legal" (their terms) and BDSM.
Well, probably not. I'm not familiar with French copyright law, but it's quite common to make a distinction between artistic works and mass produced items (though these may be protected by design rights or similar). So you'll probably be safe taking photos in Ikea. But your general point on encroachment is well made.
I look forward to combining this with the recent Temple Islands case in the UK so I can sue anyone whose photo contains "even a fraction" of an idea I once had.
Ah OK, thanks. Apparently the OiNK admin was charged with conspiracy to defraud the copyright holders, so it was they who were alleged to have been defrauded, not the site's users. Thanks for correcting me on this.
According to the screenshot, the site's owners were arrested for fraud. I haven't ever visited the site, but my understanding is that most sites like this do not misrepresent themselves as legitimate suppliers of the songs in question.
I'm not terribly familiar with the law in this area, but can anyone speculate what SOCA's thought process is here? Are they suggesting that those visiting the site were deceived into believing that the songs they downloaded were in fact authorised copies? And if so, how does that sit with their claim that downloading this music may be a criminal offence?
(2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
(a)in the course of a business, or
(b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.
On the post: Twilight Studio Issues Another Bogus Takedown, But Is Zazzle Partially To Blame?
Re: Whh...what?
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
Re: They are breaking the law
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
On the post: How Sony Got Off Easy With Its 'Settlement' In Class Action Lawsuit By Underpaid Artists
And let's not forget that they can charge the legal expenses incurred on this case to the artists too.
On the post: FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles & Tablets On Takeoff & Landing
Apparently pilots can use them
On the post: Spotify Finally Launches In Germany -- And Immediately Hits Data Protection Problems
I know nothing about German law in this area, but surely Facebook also requires a Facebook account to use the service? Is Facebook legal in Germany?
On the post: For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
Re: Re: Re: Read the TOS?
On the post: For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
Re:
I'm not sure how "sell" should be interpreted (please jump in if you're familiar with this language!), but, as Mike said, they're doing this to protect themselves from the actions of their users: they want to ensure that, if I upload a picture to the site and someone gets upset and sues, it's my problem, not theirs.
If I upload one of your photos to the site, I am not in a position to grant Pinterest a licence to the work and so Pinterest has no right to exploit it, no matter what it says in their contract with me (excepting rights under any licence you may have given me, fair use and other defences).
On the post: For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
Re: Read the TOS?
Typically the right to exploit the content is revoked if the work is removed from the service in question, which in practice would stop the service, for example, using it as part of a major ad campaign or something else wildly beyond the intent of the original uploader, though I didn't see such a clause after scanning the Pinterest TOS.
On the post: Collection Society To Libraries: No Story Time For Kids Unless You Pay To Read Aloud
Re:
Depressingly this would have felt like a silly, far-fetched story to me not that long ago. Now it just seems like the logical next step.
* And don't even think about making any derivative works. Only people with photographic memories and no imagination may read books in the future.
On the post: European Commission Blames Social Networks For ACTA Failure; Worried About Its Imminent Directive On Copyright Enforcement
Re:
Of course it's true that they enable communication and the flow of ideas in ways that hasn't been possible before, but it's the people on those networks they must address - and their concerns - not the networks themselves.
On the post: Chris Dodd: The Internet Developed Because Of Strict Copyright Enforcement
And let's not forget about the large patent portfolio Tim Berners-Lee amassed - without these incentives to innovate the web would never have taken off.
On the post: Can A Company Be An 'Author' For The Purpose Of Copyright?
Re:
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act assigns copyright in computer generated works to the person who made "the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work", though this interesting Duke Law & Technology Review article argues it's not always obvious what that means, or whether it's the right approach. It also talks extensively about Mandelbrot sets. :)
On the post: Can A Company Be An 'Author' For The Purpose Of Copyright?
Re: Defining creator of a collaboration
On the post: American Airlines Making Life Worse For Most Loyal Customers By Killing Useful Mile-Tracking Browser Plugin
Another story
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re:
What I discovered was that most merchant-services (i.e. companies that allow you to use Visa and MasterCard on their site) which allow adult products charge a $5000 up-front fee to use their service. Then, they take exorbitant percentages from each transaction. Some 5%, some 14%, some as high as 25%.
Now it was starting to make more sense. The credit card companies charge higher fees for these “high-risk” accounts because there is a higher rate of what they call “chargebacks.” You know that protection on your credit card, where if you dispute the charge, you don’t have to pay for it? Well they’ve determined that happens more with porn and gambling and other “high-risk” sites than others, so they’re justified in charging more money to process payment for those sites.
Paypal doesn’t want to have to pay Visa and MC for carrying “high risk” accounts on their books. You have to remember that Paypal is a middleman. Sites that carry high-risk material have to pay the high-risk costs of doing business. If you’re going through Paypal, you don’t have to pay that. Until Paypal catches you. And then they insist you take down your high-risk content or lose your account.
The post also discusses the types of material being censored further. While this appears to be somewhat fluid (see linked Smashwords posts), some publishers have gone beyond banning titles that feature descriptions of illegal acts (rape, paedophilia, incest) and have banned books including themes of "pseudo-incest", "barely legal" (their terms) and BDSM.
On the post: Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...
Re:
On the post: Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Fraud?
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Fraud?
I'm not terribly familiar with the law in this area, but can anyone speculate what SOCA's thought process is here? Are they suggesting that those visiting the site were deceived into believing that the songs they downloaded were in fact authorised copies? And if so, how does that sit with their claim that downloading this music may be a criminal offence?
For distribution to be a criminal offence, The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 says
(2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
(a)in the course of a business, or
(b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.
Fraud Act 2006
Next >>